Previously in another thread, I've raised the possibility that 6D is built on an entirely new generation of sensor.

Definitely not, this was already ack'ed by Canon - it's the same sensor tech, though the 6d has a bit little larger pixels for the loss in resolution. The reason probably is that after the criticism about the lack of advancement 5d2->5d3 Canon had a 3/4 year time to optimize everything else.

but small differences in image parameters between a consumer and a pro camera.

However, this shows how desperate the Canon crowd is for sensor advancement ... the Nikon competition obviously has left its mark :-> ... and again, imho there is no fixed distinction between "pro" or not except for marketing, why not use the 6d if it is at least as good or even better (low light af) for some shots?

However, this shows how desperate the Canon crowd is for sensor advancement ... the Nikon competition obviously has left its mark :-> ... and again, imho there is no fixed distinction between "pro" or not except for marketing, why not use the 6d if it is at least as good or even better (low light af) for some shots?

Agreed! If the low-light AF functionality of the 6D is as advertised, then it certainly caters to a different group of photographers. Body is still magnesium alloy reinforced after all. What's really missing is the lack of the advanced AF system of the higher-end models. Maybe eventually, the 6D would also be used as a backup body for when low-light is needed.

Personally, as long as the 6D doesn't perform poorer in the IQ area compared to the 5D3, then its certainly a viable option for people like me who don't really take much pictures of moving subjects.

i only speak about low iso.. im not needing these incredible high isos for my shots. and like the 5D MK3 i see no real improvement compared to the 5D MK2... not in these samples.

And that wasn't to be expected - for lower iso shots the 5d2 should be great (actually even little better than the 5d3). But most people who upgrade to ff want to have the medium-high iso capability, meaning ~6400 which is exactly what is really missing from the crop sensors and in this region there is an improvement over the 5d2. I agree crazy-high iso speeds are mainly for marketing.

Gothmoth

yes it was not... but i really hope we will see a new process (180nm) soon.

then the great camera bodys will be joined with even better sensors.and for low iso, high quality landscape and studio photographer, who don´t care much about AF speed or AF tracking, there will be a reason to upgrade to a new body.

it's nice to know that Canon has given DPReview a pre-production camera to play with.

Where did you get this information? Everywhere I look it has the "The camera used for this gallery was pre-production, and image quality should be considered 'Beta' standard" notice, though that probably only means the in-camera raw-converter / jpeg-engine and not the sensor hardware.

It's the logical conclusion that DPReview got a pre-production 6D from Canon. How else would they have been able to take sample images with it? These aren't samples Canon took themselves and sent to DPReviews. How closely this camera comes to the production camera is anyone's guess. Although if Canon intends to have these in stores world wide for Christmas, I'd bet they are already in production, and the only thing likely to change is firmware.

These are out of camera Jpg's. They look identical to the 5D3 files but only with more NR in camera.

Look again, for example @iso6400 on the fur of the mouse on the left - there are more details in the 6d even though it has a cleaner background, so it's not just more nr. But still doesn't mean much since it's a comparison of two beta in-camera jpeg engines with too high nr settings...

These are out of camera Jpg's. They look identical to the 5D3 files but only with more NR in camera.

Look again, for example @iso6400 on the fur of the mouse on the left - there are more details in the 6d even though it has a cleaner background, so it's not just more nr. But still doesn't mean much since it's a comparison of two beta in-camera jpeg engines with too high nr settings...

Meh. If there is any tiny difference, it will be irrelevant in real world use.

Meh. If there is any tiny difference, it will be irrelevant in real world use.

Sure, though we'll only know for sure by looking at studio shots after a 6d raw converter is out. And concerning the dpreview shots: Actually I looked again and the focus on the 5d3/6d shots is a little different, so even @f11 that explains some differences.

Meh. If there is any tiny difference, it will be irrelevant in real world use.

Sure, though we'll only know for sure by looking at studio shots after a 6d raw converter is out. And concerning the dpreview shots: Actually I looked again and the focus on the 5d3/6d shots is a little different, so even @f11 that explains some differences.

On another note, I recently found out why the 6D was designed without a multi-selector.

I wish I have 6D on hand for side by side comparision. The match doesn't seem to add up, $2100 body is perform better than $3500 in high ISO with same sensor.

The 6d will only be a little better because of the larger pixels... and as to the price: the reason would be that Canon cannot cut back the sensor in light of the Nikon competition - so they'll make sure to build in enough differences to the 5d3 elsewhere (1/4000s, 1/180s x-sync, body size, af, fw features like no raw hdr, ...).